205
submitted 3 weeks ago by NightOwl@lemmy.ca to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 36 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

The idea that judges shouldn't be elected is deeply rooted in the reactionary ideology of an aristocracy that believed the masses shouldn't be trusted with any decisions that actually matter and should be regarded with suspicion instead of trusted with decisions.

load more comments (21 replies)
[-] FelixCress@lemmy.world 16 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

This is probably the worst option. Judges should be professional and not populists pandering to the public.

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 18 points 2 weeks ago

Literally reactionary.

This ideology is what lead to the US having a fascist Court.

[-] nixfreak@sopuli.xyz 16 points 2 weeks ago

What? Democratically appointed judges? That’s amazing , wonder why the US hasn’t thought of this? Ohh right that’s because we give way too much power to the one in office. This is great for Mexico now the US needs to do this.

[-] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 0 points 2 weeks ago

Several states have elected Supreme Court Justices. Across the states, it has been seen that rulings are generally more inconsistent.

That said, Mexico has civil law instead of common law where legal precedent carries a lot less value.

[-] GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 weeks ago

I'd rather have a bumbling judge who is trying to help people rather than a competent evangelical ghoul

[-] pingveno@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

The problem is that the judges often use their decisions to campaign instead of simply applying the law. So they might give an unpopular criminal defendant a harsher sentence to look tough on crime or even tilt a trial against an innocent defendant. Not that doesn't happen with judges that are appointed by the executive, but it's usually not as bad.

[-] GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 weeks ago

"usually not as bad" requires a citation, since we can point to lots of evidence of systemic injustice in sentencing as it is. example

What you are describing is a judge pursuing an agenda and/or having an unconscious bias, which is what we have already. That's the thing I keep getting with objections to voting in judges, problems that we already have presented as though they only apply to elected judges, or problems that would be demonstrably less bad with popular input.

[-] pingveno@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago

Via the Brennan Center. Elected judges are more punitive and more likely to rule against defendants.

[-] GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 weeks ago

As far as I can tell, that's mostly not what the study says. What it is saying is that the event of a judicial election and the pressures associated therewith demonstrably cause systemic disadvantage to defendants and appellants near election time, but it doesn't actually address how the overall rulings of elected judges compare to appointed judges except for one study it mentions that does say, in your defense, that they [elected judges] reverse death sentences less often in the states that have the death penalty. However it goes on to say:

These studies leave open several important research questions. For example, they generally do not compare systems, and thus do not address whether some re-election or retention election systems have more of an impact on criminal justice outcomes than others, or whether reappointment processes may also have an effect.

And later says:

Much of the empirical research considering the impact of judicial selection dynamics on criminal justice outcomes has focused on elections. Further study is needed to understand the incentive structures created by appointive systems, particularly those that provide for reappointment. The few studies that have considered these dynamics suggest there may be reasons for concern.

For example, in one such study, Joanna Shepherd examined how the political preferences of those determining whether to extend a judge’s tenure impact judicial decision-making. Just as the public’s preferences may impact case outcomes within electoral systems, Shepherd found that the preferences of governors can have a similar effect in states where they play a role in reappointing judges. 92 Indeed, Shepherd determined that as governorships change hands, so too do judicial rulings; when a Republican governor replaces a Democratic governor, judges’ rulings in a variety of cases, including criminal cases, shift.93 Shepherd’s findings suggest that reselection pressures are a concern even outside the election context, and highlight the need for further inquiry into the dynamics of appointive systems.

And that's really the full extent to which it addresses the subject of appointment.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] rando895@lemmygrad.ml 13 points 2 weeks ago

If there are education and experience requirements imposed on judicial candidates, and then they are elected, this is not an issue. Because those who are elected are accountable to those who elected them

(provided they can be removed from.power by the same people, which is one of those "checks and balances" Western "democracies " have imposed so we can't remove them).

That way you have professionals/experts who are accountable to the people. Obviously elections can always be tampered with and influenced by powerful and moneyed interests, but by assuming this is true and then making it the default is a bit daft tbh.

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 8 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

So they should only pander to the political class? That seems great...

[-] ksynwa@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

How does one be a populist while not pandering to the public.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] selokichtli@lemmy.ml 13 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

The very same reaction to the amend shows how urgent it is to to change the judicial system. I'm glad this was done and I can't wait to vote corrupt judges out of office.

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago

Interesting. If judges are going to be political regardless, I don't see another option for democracies.

[-] zloubida@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Strong and diverse press, strong and enforced rules against politically motivated decisions. A judge should know that, if they don't strictly follow the law, they'll lose their job. This won't make the thing perfect, but far better than officially political judges.

[-] GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 weeks ago

There is no such thing as an apolitical judge. The judges you see as apolitical are just centrists supporting the status quo, but that is not actually an apolitical frame of action.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2024
205 points (99.5% liked)

World News

32153 readers
782 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS